Running head: HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER EDUCATION 1

Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton’s Policy Platform: Higher Education Issues

Caressa Nguyen, Kristen Surla, Periana Wilson

Loyola University Chicago

HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 2
“In neoliberal logic, college and university students are seen as human capital who must

acquire the skills necessary to compete in the job market. They are customers, and education is a

product. Higher education’s primary goal in the past two decades has been the production of

highly skilled workers” (Kezar, 2004). Although there are other ideological frameworks that

public policy stems from--such as communitarianism and utilitarianism--our higher education

system has fallen into the pattern of continually adhering to the ideas of neoliberalism. The

innocent and altruistic point of view that higher education should be defined by the needs of the

community is the appearance that Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton creates for

the American people. By displaying this manifestation of communitarianism, Clinton provides

the supposition that the general welfare and public good is being served through her policies.

However, by seeing past the presentation that she offers and examining her proposed policies

concerning higher education, Clinton still maintain the interests of neoliberalism.

This paper will focus on the creation of Hillary Clinton’s The New College Compact Plan

and the identification of the neoliberal framework within her policy plan. The ultimate goal of

this plan is to make higher education more accessible by making it more affordable for low

income students as well as non-traditional students like mothers and veterans, while also

increasing college completion among these groups of students. Clinton’s website also ties

together The New College Compact Plan with the Breaking Barriers Agenda. While this policy

is not specific to higher education, it advances similar core concepts of the New College

Compact, stating specifically there are tangible ways to break the barriers marginalized groups

and individuals may face in becoming successful. Giving them the opportunity to achieve these

goals, Clinton outlines the details of her $125 billion Economic Revitalization Initiative that will

aid the higher education agenda in providing apprenticeships, jobs, and other pathways to

sustainable careers (Clinton, 2016).

HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 3
Since it has already been identified that Clinton’s proposal for higher education--

including The New College Compact Plan and the Breaking Barriers Agenda--has been selected

as the policies being analyzed, it is also important to name the theoretical approach that will help

to better understand Hillary Clinton and her use of neoliberalism. Considering Clinton’s

approach to obtaining voters, she undertakes pursuing the people and what values and ideas they

wish to take place with the term of a new president. Group theory will be utilized because

centers public policy around the group struggle. Anderson (2010) delineates that because

dominant groups are often stereotyped to push public policy, group theory allows individuals to

“secure their political preferences” (p. 163). Groups and individual policy makers have an

interesting dynamic that affects the way in which potential policies can rise or fall. Connecting

neoliberalism and Hillary Clinton’s platform to group theory enables a critic concerning the

problems, goals, and solutions for higher education.

Access to Higher Education

College access, affordability, and completion are not new issues in the political arena. In

his State of the Union address in 2012, President Obama stated, “No one should go broke

because they chose to go to college” (Adams et. al, 2013, pp. 179). College should be affordable

so that everyone has access to higher education and so that everyone who pursues higher

education has an equal chance of completing their college education. This is a problem that the

United States continues to face each year as countless students, especially students from low

income and non-traditional backgrounds, cannot enroll in institutions of higher education due to

lack of financial resources. The struggle of these groups pushes politicians like Hillary Clinton

to create and implement policies that will benefit these groups and attempt to remedy the issues

of college access, affordability, and completion.

Clinton presents her college access and affordability plan as communitarian, which
HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 4
promotes a social and public charter in the traditional model of higher education for the public

good (Kezar, 2004). She aims to work for the good of the people by making education more

affordable and therefore widening access, ensuring that students who are parents will have

childcare available to accommodate them when they are in school, making community college

free, and supporting initiatives such as TRIO, GEAR UP, and other interventions that have

proven to boost completion, especially for low-income and first-generation students. Her

approach is twofold; what she plans to do is communitarian, yet how she does it is neoliberal.

“The neoliberal philosophy of the public good espouses an individual; and economic charter,

resulting in the industrial model of higher education.” (Kezar, 2004, p. 423). The New College

Compact Plan encompasses introducing students from all backgrounds to careers in public

service; this will result in more students serving the needs of their communities post-graduation.

Another part of Clinton’s plan is to “Expand access to high-quality training programs that are up-

to-date for the 21st century, and that lead to lifelong skills and credentials for good jobs”

(Clinton, 2016). This is neoliberalism at its best with college students attaining skills to compete

in the job market.

When assessing Clinton’s goals as presented in her New College Compact Plan,

neoliberalism is the driving force to achieving these goals. Financial security is one goal of

Clinton’s plan. By providing access to higher education through free tuition and affordability

and providing funding TRIO programs which aid in college completion, Clinton’s plan provides

access to the job market afterwards, which in turn provides financial stability and financial

security. However, the issue arises when considering the influx of students entering higher

education because of its affordability and whether or not there will be enough jobs available

post-graduation for these students. Economic security is defined as having a reliable source of

income to support self and family (Stone, 2012). If jobs are not available, economic security will
HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 5
be challenged and Clinton’s goal will fail. However, if her plan is successful, there will be more

citizens contributing financially to the greater good of society, building up the economy.

Efficiency yields the most value for society from given resources (Stone, 2012). Clinton’s New

College Compact Plan aims to make higher education more efficient for society at large by

targeting certain populations that normally would not have access to higher education (low

income students, mothers, and veterans). Clinton’s plan will make higher education more

efficient to graduate more students through funding for TRIO programs, get more students

working in public service jobs, being an input back into the community, and creating more

skilled workers ready to enter the job market and contribute financially to society (Clinton,

2016). Her plan also makes higher education at large more efficient and accessible by offering

different types of educational programs such as community college, 4 year colleges, online

education (making it more credible), and high quality training options, etc. which will attract

different types of students to partake in higher education (Clinton, 2016).

Clinton’s New College Compact Plan appears to be a realistic idea in theory; however,

she will most likely get resistance when trying to implement it because of the costs associated

with this plan, who she will need to work with in order to implement the plan, and how drastic

the plan is. This is evident in the feedback that she has already received. Vic Klatt, a principal

at the Penn Hill Group and a former GOP education policy staffer in the House said, “It’s

expected that she will make a college affordability plan a priority, but there is real skepticism

from Capitol Hill observers about the likelihood of a free college plan, which has been estimated

to cost as much as $500 billion over 10 years” (Kreighbaum, 2016). Not only is the plan very

costly, but it also requires change to happen relatively quickly. From the start of the plan,

students from families that make less than $85,000 per year will receive free tuition, and by

2021, students from families making less than $125,000 per year will receive free tuition
HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 6
(Clinton, 2016). Lindblom highlights that change seldom happens in large steps and that

democracies change policies primarily through incremental adjustments (Larson and Lovell,

2010). This leads other politicians as well as the general public to doubt the likelihood of

Clinton’s plan actually being implemented, as it is so drastic that it seems unrealistic in a sense.

What also needs to be taken into account is that the presumed next chairwoman of the House

education committee, Virginia Foxx is a conservative Republican (Kreighbaum, 2016). Foxx is

more likely to vote against implementing Clinton’s New College Compact Plan, especially the

free tuition aspect since the Clinton plans to pay for free tuition by limiting certain tax

expenditures for high-income taxpayers. Therefore fighting for this plan and getting it

implemented will be difficult.

Student Debt

In presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s platform for higher education, The College

Compact, she discusses the impact of college debt and loan repayment on individual students

and, more importantly, its impact on the larger society and U.S. economy. As a major focus of

her College Compact and Breaking Barriers Agenda, Clinton strives to make higher education

accessible and affordable for students. Reducing student debt prepares students to make

financially responsible decisions resulting in overall economic and post-graduation success under

her platform. Clinton describes “... debt prevents people from forming families, buying homes,

and starting small businesses. It sends the wrong signal to future students whom we need to

complete college to drive economic growth” (Clinton, 2016). Student debt is a national problem

causing severe ramifications on the United States economy including unemployment and mass

defaulting on student loans. Clinton’s College Compact is a reaction to a group problem (student

debt) to which she presents solutions using neoliberal strategies including the use of college
HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 7
students as stimulators of the economy, increased involvement from companies and businesses to

fund students’ education, and debt relief for business owners.

According to Clinton, college students hold an important role in stimulating the

economy; working to reduce student debt creates a win-win situation for both students and the

federal government. Historically, the role of higher education has not only been to prepare

students for jobs, but to also broaden one’s knowledge and critical thinking to create an

intellectually and politically engaged society. However, current college graduates are known to

be highly educated and underemployed, causing Clinton’s education platform to center around

economic growth and shifting the purpose of higher education. Under Clinton’s College

Compact, she strengthens the role of students as stimulators of the economy by rewarding

students pursuing degrees directly tied to their future profession. Under Clinton’s neoliberal

plan, she directs the priority of higher education to be job-oriented. Kerr (1994) outlines the role

of neoliberalism in higher education stating, “...college and university students are seen as

human capital who must acquire the skills necessary to compete in the job market. They are

customers, and education is a product. Higher education’s primary goal in the past two decades

has been the production of highly skilled workers” (as cited in Kezar, 2004, p. 437). When

introducing her own philosophy towards higher education, Clinton explains, “her belief [is] that

every American – especially young Americans – should be able to learn new skills in order to

seize a new work opportunity or attain a promotion at their current place of employment”

(Clinton, 2016). Clinton’s focus on gaining employment demonstrates her neoliberal motives in

higher education to create students as ‘producers’ who will contribute to the revitalization of the

United States economy. Additionally, Clinton uses neoliberal logic to legitimize opportunities

for nontraditional students’ access to higher education. Clinton justifies debt relief for non-

traditional students by explaining, “People of all ages need continued access to a range of higher
HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 8
education and training opportunities so that they can keep up with changes in technology and

industry, and shift fields or move up in their fields” (Clinton, 2016). Again, Clinton defines the

role of a student through their job potential, making mass relief of student debt under Clinton’s

College Compact a public good for students and the United States economy.

Under a neoliberal approach to higher education, production and individual achievement

are prioritized (Kezar, 2004, p. 433). For Clinton, a major solution to student debt includes the

increased roles of companies in relieving debt and providing career-building opportunities for

students. The College Compact proposes a direct pipeline between college students and

companies through Clinton’s apprenticeship program offering “a tax credit for businesses of

$1,500 per apprentice hired through a bona-fide apprenticeship program” (Clinton, 2016). The

apprenticeship strategy demonstrates Clinton’s neoliberalism through connecting the role of

businesses to the need for student debt relief. By creating a symbiotic relationship between

business owners and students, Clinton creates an attractive solution to a wide U.S. audience.

Thinking ahead, students enrolling in an apprenticeship program will receive both debt relief and

work experience that can open up career opportunities post graduation. Aside from her

apprenticeship program, Clinton proposes an additional work-based form of debt relief through a

10 hour/week work-study program that will, “... expand work opportunities that build career

skills and introduce students of all backgrounds to public service careers” (Clinton, 2016). The

emphasis on work-study is not only an incentive to students, but also a statement on Clinton’s

belief on the purpose of higher education: job security & employment. By involving businesses

in students’ educational outcomes, Clinton leverages the need for security through her

neoliberalist structure. Because student debt is currently seen as an impediment to students’

futures beyond college and an insecurity for many Americans, Clinton’s neoliberal agenda to

connect businesses and student experience could be highly successful.

HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 9
Building upon her plan to connect higher education to business, Clinton’s College

Compact incentivizes students to become business owners themselves post-graduation through

debt relief. As a reward to business owners, Clinton promises “no payments or interest for up to

three years so that student debt and the lack of family wealth is not a barrier to innovation in our

country” (Clinton, 2016). In her proposal, Clinton aligns her policy with the demands of

marginalized groups. In addressing low-income students, Clinton’s approach plays upon the

narrative of those who do not already access the power and privilege of the dominant group.

Throughout Clinton’s College Compact & Breaking Barriers Agenda, she disguises her

neoliberal strategies under the idea of accessibility and supporting low-income students.

However, her proposal to award students who become business owners displays her commitment

to economic security through corporate interests. After graduation, students who become

business owners shift from being what Kezar defines as “customers” in a neoliberal society to

being the “producers” who contribute to the public good through economic stimulation and job

opportunities for future students. Relieving the financial stress and risk for new business owners

encourages students from low income backgrounds to concentrate their efforts on capitalistic

goals that will absolve their student debt and create financial security for them post-graduation.

Conclusion

Historically, the populations allowed to access to higher education were once a small

group. Over the years, more and more individuals have acquired the opportunity for

postsecondary education. However, even today, the system in which our society operates still

requires agendas to push the boundaries of who can access higher education. Allowing for such

opportunity to occur, many believe it creates competition in the job market. For students coming

out of higher education, a high level of stress transpires as a result of the search for post-graduate

jobs. Students have the perception that the first position they obtain after their undergraduate
HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 10
experience help to define and strongly shape their career path. Young adults who have not

attended or completed higher education also face this struggle to create a livelihood for

themselves.

Clinton believes in Americans and the idea that college is not the only way to pursue

personal success and financial stability, sharing her appreciation and admiration for individuals

who have endured the difficult societal times where a college degree is seen as a necessity.

Clinton “wants to build an economy that works for everyone not just those at the top, where

Americans of all educational backgrounds share in this country’s opportunity and prosperity”

(Clinton, 2016). While it is beneficial that Clinton insinuates the provision of opportunity, it

reflects back to the success of the individual. “Economic rationality supersedes all other forms

of logic, and people should act in ways that maximize their personal benefits” (Kezar, 2004).

Through the implementation of her policy, upon being elected President, Clinton takes control of

her position as a potential policymaker. By creating economic opportunity for groups that are

often left out of the conversation of higher education and job opportunity, she has manipulated

the system so that possible groups are not formed to fight for their struggle, no longer requiring a

collective effort upon communities.

HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 11
References:

Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castañeda, R., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zúñiga,

X. (Eds.). (2013). Readings for diversity and social justice (3rd ed.). New York:

Routledge.

Anderson, J. E. (2010). The study of public policy. In C. D. Lovell, T. E. Larson, D. R. Dean, &

D. L. Longanecker (Eds.), Public policy and higher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 153-167).

Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.

Expanding Opportunity Beyond a 4-Year College Degree. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2016,

from https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/13/expanding-

opportunity-beyond-a-4-year-college-degree/.

Hillary Clinton’s “Breaking Every Barrier Agenda”: Revitalizing the Economy in Communities

Left Behind. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2016, from

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/h/2016-02-12-hillary-clintons-breaking-every-

barrier-agenda-revitalizing-the-economy-in-communities-left-behind/.

Hillary Clinton’s Commitment: A Debt-Free Future for America’s Graduates. (n.d.) Retrieved

October 9, 2016, from

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/06/hillary-clintons-

commitment-a-debt-free-future-for-americas-graduates/.

Hillary Clinton’s New College Compact (n.d.) Retrieved October 7, 2016, from

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/.

Kezar, A. J. (2004). Obtaining Integrity? Reviewing and Examining the Charter Between Higher

Education and Society. Review of Higher Education 27: 429-459.

Kreighbaum, Andrew. (2016). Senate Higher Ed Post Up for Grabs. Retrieved October 25, 2016,

from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/10/20/higher-ed-would-be-central-
HILLARY CLINTON ON HIGHER
EDUCATION 12
clinton-administration-who-would-carry-agenda-congress.

Larson, T. E, & Lovell, C. D. (2010). The integration of higher education and public policy: A

complex and often misunderstood nexus. In C. D. Lovell, T. E. Larson, D. R. Dean, & D.

L. Longanecker (Eds.), Public policy and higher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 3-9). Boston,

MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.

The New College Compact. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2016, from

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/09/12/the-new-college-

compact/.

Stone, D. (2011). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

WW Norton & Company.